"googlesux" > wrote in message
om...
> "rick etter" > wrote in message
>...
>
> > That's the point bozo, you, and no other vegan here has ever even tried
to
> > discover if you really *are* causeing less death and suffering.
> > fact is, none of you will even try, even if you were smart enough to
know
> > how.
>
> So your claim is that the production of vegetation for human
> consumption causes MORE death and suffering than does the production
> of all meat and dairy products AND the vegetation that's used to feed
> the meat, fish, and dairy producing animals? Do you really think it's
> necessary to do the math to find that patently false?

Rick thinks that if he proves one vole died to feed a 1000 vegetarians he's
won the argument, because he proves that vegetarians also kill. He thinks
it's not a numbers game. This is blatently ridiculous.

Also he'll tell you vegetarians on certain diets kill more animals (even
higher animals like mammals). But he forgets what is fed to much lifestock,
and if you add in the deaths associated with this (average) feed, the
numbers greatly favor vegetarian diet. I've done the math and he's dead
wrong.

He wants vegetarians to research various meat inclusive diets, start eating
grass fed cows - but this isn't very likely. His ideas are implausible.

You need thick skin to stay here long. Good luck.

>
>
> > I don't really see
> > > why there are people here trying to remind the vegetarians and vegans
> > > that they are still causing some collateral deaths. This is like
> > > reminding firemen that some people still die in fires.
> > ======================
> > Again, analogies are hard for you, aren't they? Firemen don't claim to
> > *start* fewer fires they everybody else. that's
> > what you hypocrites try to claim, without ever providing any proof. In
> > fact, your inane posts to usenet prove just the opposite,
> > that you really acre nothing about causing unnecessary animal death and
> > sufering for no more reason than your entertainment.
>